Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 00:09:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1c9ht$9f73$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v18f9e$5asq$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v18nbf$21c98$1@dont-email.me> <v1c0p8$2skfl$3@dont-email.me>
 <v1c5fk$31a3g$1@dont-email.me> <v1c5te$9f73$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c7jr$31thl$1@dont-email.me> <v1c8nh$9f72$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c8un$3242s$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 04:09:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="310499"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1c8un$3242s$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5229
Lines: 111

On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is 
>>>>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>>>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>>>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>>>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>>>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>>>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can 
>>>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you interpret
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>
>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was 
>> refering to, 
> 
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> 
> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
> (Until you change your tune).
> 
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
> 
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
> 
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
> 


And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.


Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was 
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar 
by saying it is.

You just don't understand what Truth means.

Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.

Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be 
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then 
I can stop refuting you.


The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess 
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just 
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.